U.S. responds to Iraq's defiance with familiar threat

Posted: Thursday, December 10, 1998

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Clinton administration responded cautiously Wednesday to Iraq's latest defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors. A spokesman said the White House awaits a report from chief inspector Richard Butler but reminded Baghdad that "we have the force to respond if it proves necessary."

The latest confrontation developed when Iraqi officials blocked a U.N. team from entering an office of President Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party.

"Sometimes what happens is that they refuse the first time and they go back and they get in," said Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who was in Brussels for NATO meetings. "So I think that we have to look at all of this as a whole, the documents as well as the inspections."

However, Albright said, "It is essential for there to be a certification of cooperation," adding that there will be no review of relaxing the U.N. trade embargo and other sanctions against Iraq.

In Washington, David Leavy, a White House spokesman, said, "We've made it repeatedly clear to Iraq that we expect them to live up to their obligations and cooperate fully with UNSCOM," the U.N. special commission on Iraq.

"If Iraq does not live up to its obligations and UNSCOM cannot do its job effectively, we have the force to respond if it proves necessary," Leavy said. The administration wants to hear from Butler about the latest inspection results, he said.

The renewed U.S. threat came a day after President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, reiterated the United States willingness to use "effective force, if necessary" to remove Saddam.

Berger, in a speech at Stanford University Tuesday night, also said the administration could not tolerate an endless standoff with Iraq over inspections for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's latest pledge to permit unfettered inspections last month prompted Clinton to call off a massive missile attack against Iraq.

Allied support for an attack was uneven, and Berger acknowledged it was difficult to sustain an alliance that supports action against Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig called Iraq's behavior outrageous in light of the assurances Baghdad gave last month. But he also criticized the Bush and Clinton administrations for not eliminating Saddam.

"We should try to get rid of him," said Haig, who served in the Reagan administration. "Debates about the tactics surrounding our policy are beside the point."

Haig said in an interview that the allies were providing only shaky support because the Bush administration ended the Persian Gulf war in 1991 with Saddam still in power.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, criticized U.S. policy as limited to the two options of either attacking Iraq or starving the country through sanctions.

He said it was a mistake to try to locate "every single conceivable dangerous weapon on Iraqi soil," and to assume they exist if the inspectors cannot locate them.

That position would "condemn us into engaging in this game forever, unless we go to war and destroy Saddam Hussein," Brzezinski said.

As an alternative, Brzezinski said weapons inspectors should judge whether Iraq is capable of waging aggressive war.

If it is not, he said, the U.N. trade embargo should be lifted. Alternatively, Brzezinski said, "if we conclude they have the capacity to wage aggressive war, we destroy it."

Paul Warnke, Carter's arms control director, said limited inspections may determine Iraq's nuclear capability, but a comprehensive search is required for chemical and biological weapons.